PUBLIC AND BUSINESS ETHICS:

SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT ?

Leo W.J.C. Huberts

Hans van den Heuvel
Maurice Punch

Draft 09-05-2000
Paper to be presented at the
International Institute for Public Ethics, Year 2000 Conference
`Ethics in the New Millennium - Bridging the Public and Private Sectors'

September 24 - 28, 2000

Ottawa, Canada

Not to be quoted.

Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1081 c
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands

tel 31 20 4446805
fax 31 20 4446820
email lwjc.huberts@scw.vu.nl
PUBLIC AND BUSINESS ETHICS:
SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT1

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper a number of topics will be discussed. First, we will have a look at the
meaning of some of the basic concepts: ethics, integrity, values, norms, deviance,
corruption. Second, we will describe two contrasting views on the similarities and
differences of public and private sector ethics. Third, the values of the public sector
will be characterized. Fourth, the same is done for the business sector. Based on the
inventory of public and private sector values, a panorama of 92 organizational values
is sketched. Sixth, the overview of values is used to come to a set of 23 values which
might be called the central values for organizations. This result will be used in future
research into the similarities and differences between private and public sector ethics.

2. ETHICS AND INTEGRITY

One of the important but often confusing aspects of the debate about organizational
ethics and integrity concerns the content of the central concepts. Therefore, we start
with a brief clarification of some of the main concepts: `integrity', `ethics', `values' and
`corruption'.

As most concepts, different definitions of 'integrity' are present in the literature.

"Integrity has to do with being unaffected, intact, upright, reliable", Sorgdrager stated
(1999); it describes what a person, a group or an organization stands for. Kaptein and
Wempe (1999) favour a comparable approach. Integrity refers to remaining intact, to
soundness, credibility and the due exercise of care.
This is in line with a conclusion by Montefiori on the basis of the literature. The
association with wholeness seems to be dominant, Montefiore concludes: "persons of
integrity may be taken to be those whose overall patterns of desire and working
principle are fully integrated, as it were, and who are neither at conflict with
themselves nor given to wayward departures from their normal patterns of conduct
2
over the course of time" (1999: 9). Others disagree and see integrity as "representing
the whole of virtue" or as "one virtue among others" (Montefiori, 1999: 9).
In this paper integrity is seen as a quality or characteristic of individual or
organizational behaviour: the behaviour is in accordance with the values, norms and
rules accepted by the organization's members and its stakeholders. This includes an
element of 'wholeness', it relates to what can really be expected of an organization
and its employees. A civil servant who abuses the powers conferred on his office to
his own advantage compromises his integrity. His credibility is no longer `intact'.

1
Completely revised version based on a paper that was published in L.W.J.C. Huberts & J.H.J.
van den Heuvel (Eds.) (1999) Integrity at the Public-Private Interface. Maastricht, Shaker, pp.
165-184.
2
He refers to Oxford English Dictionary. Integrity: 1. The condition of having no part or
element wanting; unbroken state; material wholeness, completeness, entirety. 2. Unimpaired or
uncorrupted state; original perfect condition; soundness. 3. a. Innocence, sinlessness. b.
Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, honesty, sincerity.
Ethics are often associated with ideals and principles that are far removed from the
daily routine. It concerns `right and wrong' when the choice to be made has
significant impact on others. Ethics are about the norms and principles that "provide
the basic guidelines for determining how conflicts in human interests are to be settled
3
and for optimizing mutual benefit of people living together in groups" . Ethics refer
to the collection of values and norms, to the moral standards or principles which form
the foundation of integrity. Ethics are a set of principles, often defined as a code that
4
acts as a guide to conduct. The set of principles provides a framework for acting.
The moral nature of these principles refers to what is judged as right, just, or good
5
(conduct).
6
Values are `judgments of worth', are principles or standards of behaviour (Oxford).
Values should have a certain weight in choice of action (what is good to do or bad to
omit doing).
Norms state what is morally correct behaviour in a certain situation.
Values and norms guide the choice of action and provide a moral basis for justifying
or evaluating what we do. Integrity is acting within the framework of moral values
and norms (ethics). Therefore, a first task of any ethics management is "to define and
7
give life to an organization's guiding values".

There is a direct relationship between deviance and integrity. When organizational

deviance is defined as "significant violations against external and internal rules and
regulations" (Punch, 1996: 57), the emphasis is on rules. When deviance is defined as
`significant violations against the values, norms and rules', deviance is the opposite of
integrity (`accordance with values, norms and rules').

Integrity or ethical behaviour means much more than not being corrupt or fraudulent.
At the same time it is clear that the absence of corruption and fraud is a crucial aspect
of organizational integrity. One of the most generally accepted norms for organiz-
ational behaviour and decision-making is that private interests should not interfere
with organizational and public responsibilities. A functionary is corrupt when he
damages organizational and/or public interests because of the personal gain involved.

The concepts ethics, integrity, deviance and corruption can be applied in different
contexts. Individuals and organizations possess moral standards and principles
(ethics) and their behaviour can be more or less in accordance with their ethics
(individual, organizational integrity). The same can be said about (sub)sectors of
society. Professions, for example, do share moral values and norms (professional

3
From J.R. Rest (1986) Moral development: Advances in research and theory, Westport:
Praeger, p. 1; quoted in Wittmer, 1994: 352.
4
Lawton, 1998: 16.
5
In many definitions, `moral' and `ethical' are near identical. See e.g. Preston: "ethics is
concerned about what is right, fair, just, or good; about what we ought to do, not just about
what is the case or what is most acceptable or expedient" (Preston, 1996: 16); quoted in
Cooper, 1998: 7.
6
See for example: Pollock, 1998: 13; Davis, 1998 and The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Tenth
Edition. Edited by Judy Pearsall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
7
Lynn Sharp Paine in Dienhardt, 2000: 33 (a reprint from Managing for Organizational
Integrity, Harvard Business Review 1994).
ethics) and the professionals that act accordingly show professional integrity.
In this paper we explore the ethics of (organizations in) the public and the business
8
sector.

Table 1: Definition of Central Concepts

integrity: accordance with the relevant moral values and norms and
rules
individual integrity: individual's behaviour is in accordance with the
relevant moral values and norms and rules
organizational integrity: organizational behaviour is in accordance
with the moral values and norms and the rules accepted by the
organization's members and its stakeholders
ethics: the collection of moral values and norms, standards and prin-
ciples which provides a framework for acting.
moral: refers to what is judged as right, just, or good
values are `judgments of worth', moral principles or standards which
should have a certain weight in the choice of action
norms state what is morally correct behaviour in a certain situation
deviance: significant violation against the values, norms and rules
corruption: behaviour which damages organizational and/or public
interests because of the personal gain involved

Public, market and civil

The paper examines the values of business and government organizations. This means
that only two of the three spheres of modern liberal democratic society will be dealt
with. We will discuss public sector ethics (the state) and business ethics (the market),
but we will pay no attention to the third basic institution: civil society. Civil society
can be defined as "a sphere of social interaction between economy and the state,
composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of
associations (especially voluntary associations), social movements, and forms of
public communication" (Cohen & Arato, 1992: ix; Dubbink 1999).
We acknowledge that ignoring civil society is an important shortcoming. It might be
expected that 'civil society ethics' might consist of a mixture of public and business
ethics, but there is no research with arguments in favour of that hypothesis.

3. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE VALUES

When organizational ethics are associated with the principles, the values and norms of
an organization, a logical next question concerns the content of ethics; which values

8
The focus is on organizational ethics and integrity. Which values are important for the
organization, which values do have weight in the choice of action of the organization? Of
course, these values have consequences for individual behaviour in and outside the
organization. Nevertheless, this focus has to be distinguished from that on individual values
(and virtues). We will try to select the values that public and private sector organizations want
to achieve. This means that we will not go into important and relevant discussions about the
revival of Aristotelian virtues in ethical discourse (virtues: Courage, Self-control, Generosity,
Magnificence, High-Mindedness, Gentleness, Friendliness, Truthfulness, Wittiness, Modesty)
(in Hartman, 1998: 7) nor pay attention to Lasswell's values in 'Politics: who gets what, when,
how' (1936): Power, Respect, Rectitude, Wealth, Health, Enlightment, Skill, and Affection.
 9
and norms are part of organizational ethics? In this paper we concentrate on values.
Many authors have tried to sum up the basic values involved. Others distinguish
between the two sectors. What are the core values of both realms? And how do
public and private sector values relate to one another? The answer is not an easy one.
In the literature, contradictory visions exist.
On the one hand there is the thesis which can be summarized in two statements:
10
"moral dimensions and criteria can be applied to all kinds of organizations" and
"business ethics and public sector ethics share basic values and norms (and thus are
11
very much alike)" . Voth, for example, mentions truthfulness, faithfulness,
commitment, dedication, compassion, integrity, tolerance and social conscience,
referring to both the private and the public sector (Voth, 1999).

On the other hand there is the opposite view which stresses that there is a funda-
mental conflict between the moral foundations of politics and commerce. Its most
prominent representative is Jane Jacobs in her well-known book about moral
syndromes, Systems of Survival. She described a `commercial moral syndrome' and a
`guardian moral syndrome' (summarized in Table 2). Both are valid and necessary
systems of morals, but organizations will sink in "functional and moral quagmires...
when they confuse their own appropriate moral system with the other". (1992: xii).
Warnings against the confusion of morals often lead to doubts about practices from
the commercial world being applied in the public sector.

9
Although we are interested in the values of organizations, there is a resemblance with
researchers working in the deontological tradition of trying to find the principles which govern
or should govern decisions. In this respect it is worth mentioning the Aristotelian moral virtues
which still play a major role in discussions in `virtue ethics': Courage, Self-Control, Generosity,
Magnificence, High-Mindedness, Gentleness, Friendliness, Truthfulness, Wittiness and
Modesty (Hartman, 1998: 6-7).
10
Kaptein 1998: 9.
11
At the Ethics in the Public Service Conference 1998 a clear majority of the participants
(85%) agreed with the thesis "Business ethics and public sector ethics share basic values and
norms (and thus are very much alike)".
Table 2 Elements of the moral foundations of commerce and politics (Jacobs
1992)

Commercial Moral Syndrome Guardian Moral Syndrome

Shun force Shun trading

Come to voluntary agreements Exert prowess
Be honest Be obedient and disciplined
Collaborate easily with strangers Adhere to tradition
Compete Respect hierarchy
Respect contracts Be loyal
Use initiative and enterprise Take vengeance
Be efficient Deceive for the sake of the task
Promote comfort and convenience Make rich use of leisure
Dissent for the sake of the task Be ostentatious
Invest for productive purposes Dispense largesse
Be industrious Be exclusive
Be thrifty Show fortitude
Be optimistic Be fatalistic
Treasure honour

Who sees government and business values as contradictory, will probably also stress
the potential dangers of interaction. This often focuses on imaginable problems for
public sector functionaries. They are confronted with the temptations of the market
sector and with behaviour which is considered prestigious in the private sector and
corrupt in the public sector. Fears are often expressed that exposing managers to the
private sector might cause them to lose their integrity (Bovens, 1996). How real is
that fear? Empirical research should be able to answer that question. Lawton states
that "the evidence is thin on the ground" (1999: 69). Integrity is linked to role, office
and to concepts of trust. Apart from their personal qualities, we will trust the head
teacher, the police sergeant, and the doctor because of their profession and their
expertise. Their professional integrity will require them to act on behalf of the citizen.
Or in other words: the integrity of public professionals will not be influenced by
contacts with the private sector.
Elsewhere, Lawton adds, that there is also little evidence that public sector integrity
might be undermined by the `new public management' trend: "Arguments that in
adopting private sector techniques, practices and people, the public service ethos is
somewhat corrupted are not convincing" (1998: 65).

Taylor even goes a step further, when he discusses the relationship between
Australian Department of Defence and the defence industry. He stresses that the
interface with the private sector needs to be carefully managed and that one of the
lessons of the interaction with the private sector is:
"Do not assume that the public sector is more ethically aware than the private
sector" (1999: 91).
In other words: developments in the business sector can contribute towards making
the public sector more ethical.
Lawton and Taylor are far from pessimistic about the consequences of more contacts
between the market sector and the state (government and public administration).
They doubt it will lead to increased corruption and fraud in the public sector. But
opinions differ.

Differences and Problems

The discussion about possible differences between public and private sector ethics is
often intermingled with the discussion about problems arising from an intermingling
of these values. It might help if we would distinguish more carefully between the
different aspects of this phenomenon. The following 2x2 table shows that there are
four theoretical positions thinkable and it is important to note that there is no need to
suggest that the differences in values automatically lead to problems (`functional and
moral quagmires').
Empirical research will have to show
1. what the differences and similarities actually are between the public and the private
sector (values, ethics)
2. what differences cause what kind of problems
a. when a public or business organizations appreciates other sector's values b.
when the two sectors meet.

Table 3: Positions on Value Differences and Value Conflicts

public and Intermingling is intermingling is

private sector no problem a problem

sector values are similar Voth

sector values are different Jacobs, Bovens

Empirical research that offers a reliable picture of the prominence of the values in
both the public and the private sector is lacking. A problem is that there appear to be
two separate bodies of knowledge in public ethics and business ethics. Attempts to
12
compare the two are scarce. In this paper we are trying to fill part of that gap, as far
as the content of the values is concerned. First, we will have a look at the variety of
values that are considered important for the public sector.

12
This was one of the conclusions of the last chapter of the book we edited about Integrity at
the Public-Private Interface (Huberts, Van den Heuvel and Punch, 1999).
4. PUBLIC ETHICS: CENTRAL VALUES

There are numerous attempts to sum up the basic values which might be seen as
constituting `public sector ethics'.
A well-known ethical framework for public officials was developed in the United
Kingdom by the Committee on Standards in Public Life chaired by Lord Nolan. The
13
Nolan committee sketched `Seven Principles of Public Life' (Tab 4). Holders of
public office should decide because of the public interest; private interests or
obligations to outside individuals and organizations should have no influence
(selflessness and integrity). They should make choices on the basis of merit
(objectivity), they should be accountable for their decisions and actions
(accountability) and they should be as open as possible (openness). Holders of public
office have a duty to declare any private interests and resolve possible conflicts of
interest (honesty). They should promote and support these principles by leadership
and example (leadership).

Table 4 Seven Principles of Public life (Nolan Committee)

selflessness ...... Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of
the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial
or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their
friends.
integrity ........... Holders of public office should not place themselves under any
financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organiza-
tions that might influence them in the performance of their duties.
objectivity ....... In carrying out public business, including making public appoint-
ments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for
rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices
on merit.
accountability .. Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and
actions to the public and must subject themselves to whatever
scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
openness .......... Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all
the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons
for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider
public interest clearly demands.
honesty ............ Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private inter-
ests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any
conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
leadership ........ Holders of public office should promote and support these prin-
ciples by leadership and example.

A number of the `Nolan values' were used by the Committee of Independent Experts
(1999) which reported on fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European
Commission of the European Union in 1999 (leading to the resignation of the whole
commission in March 1999).
The Committee of Independent Experts summarized a "common core of `minimum
13
Oliver, 1998: 132-133, based on the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public
Life, Cm 2850, 1995, p. 14.
standards', in addition to rules laid down in black and white" (1999: 13):
"- acting in the general interest of the community and in complete independence,
which requires that decisions are taken solely in terms of the public interest, on
the basis of objective criteria and not under the influence of their own or other's
private interests;
- behaving with integrity and discretion and - the Committee would like to add -
in accordance with the principles of accountability and openness to the public,
which implies that, when decisions are taken, the reasons for them are made
known, the processes by which they were taken are transparent and any
personal conflicting interests are honestly and publicly acknowledged.
Only by respecting those standards will it be possible for holders of high office to
have the authority and the credibility enabling them to offer the leadership which they
are required to give".

A number of these basic values are also incorporated in the `Public Sector Ethics Act'
of Queensland. This Ethics Act includes respect for the law and system of
government, respect for persons (including acting honestly and responsively),
integrity (always favour public interest above personal interest), diligence (and care
and attention) and economy and efficiency (Whitton, 1999). The Queensland list
encompasses values like `diligence', `economy', and efficiency' and these values
sometimes tend to be forgotten when `ethical' values are summed up.
The Queensland values are also present in the list Sherman composed, based on
various Australian codes and guidelines (1998: 15). The ethical values to shape public
sector conduct are: honesty and integrity, impartiality, respect for the law, respect for
persons, diligence, economy and efficiency, responsiveness and accountability.
Sherman adds that his listing is intended to be illustrative. There are other values
which might be added, such as `courage' and `neutrality' (1998: 15). Bernier (1998:
117) points at comparable values for the Canadian Defence Ethics, including
`courage' (face challenges with determination and strength of character). Additionally,
important values for Canadian defence are `loyalty' (dedication to the country, loyal
to superiors, faithful to subordinates and colleagues) and `obedience' (to lawful
authority).

Many of the values above mentioned can also be found in the Codes of Conduct of
governmental organizations as well as in the United Nations `International Code of
14
Conduct for Public Officials'.
The UN Code of Conduct for Public Officials contains a set of basic standards of
integrity and performance expected from public officials, with `wide acceptance on
the basis of experience acquired in various countries'. The term `public officials' is
deemed to include all persons vested with the power and authority to make, imple-
ment, enforce, amend or revoke government decisions and to render services to the
public, with or without remuneration. The Code includes `general principles': public
officials shall act in the public interests, function efficiently and effectively, in
accordance with the law and with integrity, and shall be attentive, fair and impartial.
The code also contains rules concerning `conflicts of interest and disqualification',
`disclosure of assets, acceptance of gifts and other favours', `confidential information'
and `political activity'.

Another Code of Ethics which is worth mentioning is the code of the American

14
See: Pieth and Eigen, 1999: 665-666.
 15
Society of Public Administration. It stresses the importance of serving the public
interest (which includes exercising compassion, benevolence, fairness and optimism),
respect for the law (incl. the promotion of the principles of equality, fairness,
representativeness, responsiveness and due process), the demonstration of personal
integrity (commitment to truthfulness and honesty, respect for superiors,
subordinates, colleagues and the public), to promote ethical organizations (open
communication, creativity, dedication, accountability) and to strive for professional
excellence.

Public interest
In the public ethics literature, nowadays more attention is being paid to the content of
public sector values (Sampford & Preston, 1998; Huberts & Van den Heuvel, 1999).
Many of the mentioned values play a significant role in that body of literature but a
more general approach is present as well. Caiden's overview of public sector values is
a good example of that (Caiden, 1999). He points to `Being brother's keepers' as a
crucial value for the public sector: "Being in the very heart of government,
professional public servants are in the best position to act as protectors of the public
interest, guardians of their property and stewards of public welfare. They have to act
as if they were dealing with their own personal affairs and were affected personally by
everything the government does. Just as children are dependent on their parents, so
members of the public are dependent on public servants in many respects. Besides
being patrons of the helpless, the needy, the neglected, the underprivileged and the
poor, they have now become patrons of the arts and sciences, wild life, the
wilderness, scenic beauties, sustainable development, fair market conditions, more
equal opportunities and a whole range of research and cultural amenities. While we
all may be responsible for one another, professional public servants are becoming
increasingly responsible for everyone and everything that cannot stand on its own
16
feet." (1999: 35) . Therefore, public servants will have to be open and transparent,
be informed, honest and responsive.

Importance
A lot of values appear to be important for public sector professionals and
organizations. Another question, however, is how important the values actually are
for the people working in the organizations with often impressive mission statements
and codes of conduct.
An initial idea of the importance of the values in the eyes of politicians and civil
servants themselves, can be derived from research at the Vrije Universiteit of
17
Amsterdam . 13 different values were distinguished as possibly belonging to the
ethics of politicians and civil servants (Table 5).

15
At: http://www.aspanet.org/member/coe.htm. See also: Chandler, 1990; Plant, 1994.
16
In the values that are presented later this statement is summarized under the public sector
values 'public interest' and 'social responsibility'.
17
Results from research of Van den Heuvel, Huberts and Verberk which included a survey
among Dutch politicians and civil servants. A book about the project with the survey results
will be available in 2000.
Table 5 13 Values Research Vrije Universiteit

acceptability ....... acting in accordance with the wishes of the public

collegiality.......... act loyally and show solidarity with one's colleagues
expertise ............. act with competence and expertise
serviceability ...... act respectfully and helpfully towards the public
efficiency............ act to attain goals at least possible costs
honesty............... act truthfully and keep one's promises
obedience ........... comply with instructions and policies of superiors
impartiality......... act unbiased, unprejudiced by specific group interests
integrity.............. act unbiased by self interest
openness............. act openly and transparently, without secrecy
profitability ........ act to maximize political or bureaucratic gain
lawfulness .......... act in accordance with existing laws, rules, regulations
dedication ........... perform one's task with diligence and dedication.

18
How important are these values for the behaviour of politicians and civil servants?
When Dutch politicians are asked to select the three values which are most important
for their own behaviour, they first of all select honesty (60.4% mention this value),
followed by integrity and openness (both 39.2%), impartiality (31.5%), expertise
(26.1%), dedication (24.3%) and lawfulness (22.1%). Unimportant are obedience,
profitability and collegiality.

When civil servants have to select their three values, they mention very prominently
expertise (52.4%) and honesty (43.2%), followed by lawfulness, openness, integrity,
dedication, efficiency and serviceability. Unimportant are obedience, profitability and
acceptability.

A more precise analysis is necessary, of course, to come to conclusions about the

relationship between the organizational values and ethics, personal values and ethics,
opinions about what personal behaviour is appropriate and actual personal behaviour.

18
We report some of the results of the extensive survey among 1687 politicians and civil
servants (with an average response of 40.7%).
Table 6 Politicians, Civil Servants and the 13 Values

value Politicians Civil servants

(value among three (value among three
most important for most important for
own behaviour) own behaviour)

acceptability ............... 19.8% 3.8%

collegiality.................. 5.4% 18.5%
expertise..................... 26.1% 65.5%
serviceability .............. 16.7% 28.8%
efficiency ................... 14.0% 30.9%
honesty....................... 60.4% 34.7%
obedience ................... 0.0% 0.5%
impartiality................. 31.5% 18.0%
integrity...................... 39.2% 19.6%
openness..................... 39.2% 21.4%
profitability ................ 1.4% 1.4%
lawfulness .................. 22.1% 30.6%
dedication................... 24.3% 26.3%

A serious problem in this type of survey research is that the answers can be a mix of
respondents views on two types of questions: `What are the key values?' and `What
should be the key values?'.

In research carried out among 45 middle and senior managers drawn from across the
public services in the United Kingdom, both questions were asked (Table 7).

Table 7 Values and management of public services

What should be the key principles What are the key principles

1 Integrity 1 Meeting targets

2 Accountability 2 Obeying rules
3 Responding to client/customer Obeying superiors
4 Openness 4 Political awareness
5 Commitment to public service 5 Competitiveness
ethos 6 Accountability
6 Objectivity 7 Responding to client/customer
7 Loyalty 8 Integrity
8 Honesty 9 Opportunism
9 Leadership 10 Honesty
10 Selflessness Openness
11 Meeting targets Working hard
12 Thoroughness
The managers were asked to rank different values. What should be the key principles
19
and which values actually are prominent in the public sector?
Effectiveness and obedience appear to be much more important than they should be,
while values like integrity, accountability, responsiveness and openness are less
important.

Conclusion
Of course, the presented sketch of the literature and codes of ethics is far from
complete. Nevertheless, when we try to summarize the picture and present an
overview of the mentioned values, an extensive list of public sector values arises
20
(Table 8). None of the values is identical to another one, although of course some
of them are related, sometimes closely related.

Table 8 53 Public Sector Values

acceptability honesty representativeness

accountability impartiality respect for the law
attentiveness independence respect for persons
being brother's keepers informedness respect for the public
benevolence integrity respect for system of
care lawfulness government
collegiality leadership responsiveness
compassion loyalty selflessness
competitiveness meeting targets serviceability
courage neutrality social responsibility
creativity obedience thoroughness
dedication to the country objectivity transparency
diligence openness truthfulness
discretion opportunism working hard
economy optimism
effectiveness political awareness
efficiency professional excellence
equality profitability
expertise public interest
fairness public ethos commitment

19
Lawton, 1998: 29. Research among 45 MBA students at the Open University Business
School.
20
Some of the values with a more comprehensive description haven been summarized, but our
objective is to cover all the values which were mentioned in this paragraph.
5. BUSINESS ETHICS: CENTRAL VALUES

De George stresses the importance of integrity and ethics for international and global
business. A company's reputation is one of its most important assets and "Reputation
is a result of continuous ethical action and of an ethical corporate culture" (1993: 7).
Some general ethical norms apply to any business operating anywhere. The norms are
universal because they are necessary either for a society to function or for business
transactions to take place.
De George mentions three basic moral norms applying to people everywhere (1993:
19-20): the injunction against arbitrarily killing members of one's own society
(including respecting the lives of those with whom citizens and companies do busi-
ness), truthfulness (to tell the truth, not to lie) and respect for property. In addition
certain other norms are required if any business is to function. He mentions two
(1993: 20-21):
-honouring contracts: if one does enter a contract, one is obliged to honour it
-exercising fairness in business dealings (each party to the contract having a
reasonable expectation of gaining something by it).
These general ethical norms apply to all businesses in all countries and across all
borders. All business actors will have to respect these norms. A company that wishes
to act with integrity, however, will have to meet more demands: it has to act in
accord with its self-imposed values - which cannot be less than the ethical minimum,
but may well exceed this (1993: 39).

Kaptein and Wempe (1999) point out that working on integrity means that organiz-
ations will have to discover and formulate these 'self-imposed values' themselves. This
could be focused on establishing the aspects of which everyone within the
organization believes they should be taking into account when decisions are being
made.
In the case of the Schiphol Airport Company, this procedure led to four basic
headings: loyalty, collegiality, care and credibility. The Rabobank groups them under
the following headings: member and customer functionalism, sustainable
relationships, integrity of action and a sense of community. For ABN AMRO Bank
teamwork, professionalism, respect and integrity are the fundamental considerations
governing employee actions.
21
Also worth mentioning is the Royal Dutch Shell Group of Companies. The Shell
General Business Principles are an example of a code of conduct of a multinational
company in which a selection of values and principles can be found. The core values
of the company are honesty, integrity and respect for people and it also firmly
believes in the promotion of trust, openness, teamwork and professionalism, and in
pride in what the companies do. These underlying corporate values determine the
business principles which concern - the objectives of the company (to engage effi-
ciently, responsibly and profitably in business);
- its responsibilities to shareholders, customers, employees, those with whom Shell
does business and to society;
- economic principles (profitability is essential);
- business integrity;

21
Information about Shell: `http://www.shell.com', including its General Business Principles,
the Shell Reports (`Profits and Principles - does there have to be a choice', Shell, 1998; `The
Shell Report 1999', Shell, 1999) and Management Primers (e.g. the primer `Dealing with
Bribery and Corruption').
- political activities of companies and employees;
- health, safety and the environment;
- the community;
- competition;
- communications.
Business integrity, for example, means that
"Shell companies insist on honesty, integrity and fairness in all aspects of their
business and expects the same in their relationships with all those who with
whom they do business. The direct or indirect offer, payment, soliciting and
acceptance of bribes in any form are unacceptable practices. Employees must
avoid conflicts of interests between their private financial activities and their
part in the conduct of company business".

A company which is often mentioned in relation to social responsibility is The Body

Shop. Its mission statement expresses that responsibility, although it does not forget
that `making fun' is not as unimportant as most ethical deliberations and codes of
conduct suggest (Hartman, 1998: 551):
"Our reason for being:
To dedicate our business to the pursuit of social and environmental change.
To Creatively balance the financial and human needs of our stakeholders:
employees, customers, franchises, suppliers and shareholders.
To Courageously ensure that our business is ecologically sustainable: meeting
the needs of the present without compromising the future.
To Meaningfully contribute to (-) communities in which we trade, by adopting
a code of conduct which ensures care, honesty, fairness and respect.
To Passionately campaign for the protection of the environment, human and
civil rights, and against animal testing within the cosmetics and toiletries
industry.
To Tirelessly work to narrow the gap between principle and practice, whilst
making fun, passion and care part of our daily lives".

More in general, Wempe (1998) and Kaptein (1998) have described in more detail
what the expectations of stakeholders are regarding the moral trustworthiness of the
organization. Wempe (1998: ch.10) distinguished three moral qualities which ensure
the integrity of the corporation and which can be expressed in the organizational
culture and structure:
1. Fairness (be open, consider consequences, be prepared to learn);
2. Independence (clear choices made and communicated, coherent and consistent;
hardness: go for the best);
3. Unity (internally open; stimulate cooperation; management concerned about
employees).
Kaptein expects that the stakeholders of a company have identical procedural
expectations. These would include the following criteria: unity (or consistency),
openness, honesty, liberty (for stakeholders), subsidiarity (right level of centraliz-
ation), equality in treatment, reciprocity (expect the same standards from others),
adequacy (in reacting to potential damage), solidarity (solving social problems),
faithfulness (to fulfil expectations raised), sustainability (compensate for unfair harm
to other interests) and readiness to learn (Kaptein, 1998: 125-126).

Organizational behaviour and management

In many of the textbooks about organizational behaviour and management, some
attention is paid to organizational values and ethical behaviour. Kreitner, Kinicki &
Buelens (1999), for example, identify seven general moral principles for managers:
`respect for the value and dignity of human life', `autonomy and all persons right to
self-determination', `honesty', 'loyalty', `fairness (treat people justly)', `humaneness
(accomplish good and avoid doing evil)' and 'the common good: trying to accomplish
22
the greatest good for the greatest number' (1999: 77).
Business strategy and business ethics are often discussed in relation to corporate
governance and the stakeholder model. Corporate governance "determines whom the
organization is there to serve and how the purposes and priorities of the organization
should be decided" (Johnson and Scholes, 1999: 203). Which stakeholders have to be
taken into account? Stakeholders are all those who have a stake in an organizations
performance, be they internal or external to it (Whysall, 1994: 249). Often the
'environment' is included (Lee, Newman and Price, 1999: 205-212).

Cooperation
Sometimes, the cooperation between a governmental organization and private
companies results in developing codes of ethical behaviour for the private sector. The
Australian Department of Defence expects that those conducting, or wishing to
conduct, business with it (tenderers, contractors, suppliers and their employees and
subcontractors) will maintain relationships with Defence personnel that are based on
mutual trust, and which will stand up to public scrutiny and preserve public trust.
Suppliers are e.g. expected to deliver value for money, to avoid collusive practices, to
disclose beneficial interests in contracts wherever appropriate; not to accept solici-
tations from or make offers to Defence employees of financial or other benefits and to
cooperate with Defence's post separation employment guidelines. These elements of a
code of conduct are part of a common statement `Defence and Industry. An Ethical
Relationship'. In development of the statement, the existence of a high level joint
Defence and Industry Committee was of considerable help (Taylor, 1999).

Dynamics in Business Ethics

A nationwide descriptive ethics survey of U.S. managerial values, consisting of
responses from more than 1,000 members of the American Management Association
(AMA) representing diverse industries, organizations, functions, and levels,
compared the changes and constants in the way U.S. managers viewed themselves
and their work between 1981 and 1991 (Petrick & Quinn, 1997: 57-58). This
comparison of U.S. managerial values with a decade in between highlights the
national normative value shifts among managers. Table 9 summarizes the results.

22
Source: Kent Hodgson, A Rock and a Hard Place: How to Make Ethical Business Decisions
When the Choices are Tough (published by AMACOM, 1992).
Table 9 Changes and Constants in U.S. Managerial Values

1. quality and customer service as new values

Changes in U.S. 2. stronger feeling that improvements in the quality of life
Managerial require a society with a cooperative value system
values 3. home and personal considerations are taking greater
precedence over employers demands
4. greater attention on others than on personal needs
5. increased appreciation for the importance of govern-
ment and public private partnerships
6. greater challenges face managers in aligning personal
and organizational values

1. managers value honesty and competence above every

Constants in other quality
U.S. Managerial 2. optimism about the future
Values 3. stable relative importance of various principles and
goals
4. customers in centre stage as a firms key stakeholders
5. ethics codes and workshops a peripheral part of the
corporate environment
6. behaviour of those in charge as principal determinant in
setting the firm's ethical tone

Source: Petrick & Quinn, 1997: 58 (Copyright 1992, by The Regents of The University of
California (California Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 3). By permission of The Regents).

Conclusion
Of course, also the presented sketch of the business ethics literature and the selection
of actual company codes is far from complete. Nevertheless an extensive number of
23
business sector values have been mentioned. None of the values is identical to
another one, although of course some of them are related, sometimes closely related.

23
As in the summary of public sector values, some of the mentioned values have been
summarized or combined.
Table 10 57 Business Sector Values

adequacy functionalism (member quality

autonomy and customer) reciprocity
care hardness/go for the best respect
clarity home & personal respect for persons
coherence considerations respect for property
collegiality honesty responsibility
common good honouring contracts self-determination
community-orientation humaneness service (to customer)
competence independence social responsibility
competitiveness integrity solidarity
consistency leadership subsidiarity
cooperativeness learnability/ sustainability
courage readiness to learn sustainable relationships
creativity liberty (for stakeholders) teamwork
credibility loyalty trust
customer oriented openness truthfulness
efficiency optimism unity
employee-concerned passion
equality in treatment pride
fairness professionalism
faithfulness profitability
fun making
6. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ETHICS: SIMILARITIES AND
DIFFERENCES

After the sketches of the values from the private and public sector, an obvious
question is which values have been detected in both spheres and how the
conglomerates of values relate to one another.
The answer however, is not an easy one. In public as well as in business ethics many
different values are mentioned as important for governmental and commercial
organizations.

In alphabetical order, the result is an extended list of 92 different values. The values
which have been mentioned among the public as well as the business sector values are
printed in italic:
acceptability, accountability, adequacy, attentiveness, autonomy, being
brother's keepers, benevolence, care, clarity, coherence, collegiality,
common good, community-orientation, compassion, competence,
competitiveness, consistency, cooperativeness, courage, creativity, credi-
bility, customer oriented, dedication (to the country), diligence, discretion,
economy, effectiveness, efficiency, employee-concerned, equality, equality
in treatment, expertise, fairness, faithfulness, fun making, functionalism
(member and customer), hardness/go for the best, home & personal con-
siderations, honesty, honouring contracts, humaneness, impartiality,
independence, informedness, integrity, lawfulness, leadership, learnability/-
readiness to learn, liberty (for stakeholders), loyalty, meeting targets,
neutrality, obedience, objectivity, openness, opportunism, optimism,
passion, political awareness, pride, professional excellence, professional-
ism, profitability, public interest, public ethos commitment, quality,
reciprocity, representativeness, respect, respect for property, respect for
persons, respect for system of government, respect for the public, respect
for the law, responsibility, responsiveness, self-determination, selflessness,
service (to customer), serviceability, social responsibility, solidarity,
subsidiarity, sustainability, sustainable relationships, teamwork,
thoroughness, transparency, trust, truthfulness, unity, working hard.

92 different values and the list will be all but exhaustive for public ethics and business
ethics literature. None of the values is identical to another one, although it is obvious
some of them are related, sometimes closely related. The complex mosaic of values
makes it hard to cluster them for research. That clustering is nevertheless required to
enable a rational discussion about public and business sector ethics.

Pollock's typology is helpful in this respect. She made an inventory of ethical issues,
with examples of unethical behaviour. Pollock distinguished four levels: 'the
individual and the organization' (unethical behaviour concerning overtime abuse, gifts
and gratuities), `the organization and employees' (discouraging honest criticism,
unrealistic demands), the individual and other employees' (sexual harassment, gossip)
and `the individual and the public' (misuse of authority, lack of expertise in
profession) (Pollock, 1998: 13).
Of course, a comparable approach is possible to distinguish between the mentioned
values. We distinguish between values primarily considering:

the organization and its environment

 the organization and other organizations
the organization and its public
the organization and its employees
the employee and the organization
the employee and other employees
the employee

Table 11 presents an overview of the classification characteristics of the distinguished

values. Some of the values belong to more categories.

Table 11: Values and Levels

organization and its environment

being brother's keepers, common good, community orientation, dedication to
country, equality, public ethos commitment, public interest, respect for
persons, respect for property, respect for the law, respect for the system of
government, respect(ability), social responsibility, social solidarity (sense of
community), sustainability.
organization and other organizations
competitiveness, cooperativeness, honouring contracts, reciprocity,
sustainable relationships.
organizational policies/products and its public
acceptability, accountability, adequacy, attentiveness, benevolence, care,
clarity, coherence, compassion, consistency, credibility, customer oriented,
economy, effectiveness, efficiency, equality in treatment, fairness, faith-
fulness, functionalism, hardness (go for the best), humaneness, lawfulness,
opportunism, profitability, quality, readiness to learn, representativeness,
responsibility, responsiveness, service to customer, serviceability, transpar-
ency, trust(worthiness), unity.
organization and its employees
employee-concerned, fairness, leadership, subsidiarity.
employee and the organization
accountability, care, competence, courage, creativity, dedication, diligence,
discretion, economy, expertise, honesty, impartiality, independence,
informedness, integrity, loyalty, meeting targets, neutrality, obedience,
objectivity, openness, optimism, political awareness, pride, professional
excellence, professionalism, selflessness, thoroughness, truthfulness,
working hard.
employee and other employees
collegiality, loyalty, solidarity, teamwork.
employee
autonomy/self-determination, fun making, home and personal considerations,
liberty, passion, self-determination (self-fulfilment)

The value systems of organizations inevitably are complex entities with many values
in different combinations and with different priorities. Nevertheless, one could argue
that a set of core values can be selected, if we would succeed in determining the
values which are most important for each of the categories. When the mentioned
values are used as a starting point, and the values are grouped in subcategories, the
following picture arises.
The first category of values points to the responsibilities of an organization for its
social and natural environment. Most of them concern responsibilities towards society
(being brother's keepers, common good, community orientation, dedication to
country, equality, public ethos commitment, public interest, social solidarity) which
might be summarized in 'social justice'. Of course, this includes respect for people.
'Sustainability' points to respect for the natural environment and ecology. In
democratic societies, respect for the law, respect for the system of government and
respect for property are elements of acting in accordance with laws, rules and
regulations ('lawfulness').

In its relationships with other organizations, competing values are relevant.

'Cooperativeness' and reciprocity point at working together, trying to achieve a
situation of mutual benefit with others, which might contribute to building sustainable
relationships. 'Competitiveness' on the other hand aims at being better then others. Of
course, this is related to profitability: trying to maximize gain. Honouring contracts is
not included in these two values, but this element is embedded in the values 'honesty'
and 'lawfulness'.

Most values point at the relationship between organizational policies and products
and the public involved (citizens and customers). Many of them are related which
makes it possible to cluster an number of them.
An organization will value gain or benefits from their policies and activities
24
(profitability in a broad sense) , but this will be related to the expectations of the
people they serve (customers and citizens).
The public will expect that an organization acts `consistent` (mentioned values:
coherence, consistency, unity), within the legal framework (lawful), responsive
(acceptability, attentiveness, readiness to learn, responsiveness, representativeness,
responsiveness), effective (adequacy, effectiveness, functionalism), efficient
(economy, hardness/go for the best, quality), service orientation (customer oriented,
25
equality in treatment, fair, service to customer, serviceability) and with care (care,
compassion, benevolence, humaneness), honest (credibility, faithfulness, honesty,
trust(worthiness)), open and transparent (clarity, transparency) and accountable
(accountability, responsibility).
Although organizations will often value the standards that favour citizens or
customers, some of these values also have a strong internal logic of their own. The
profitability (organizational gain or benefits) of an organization is of course related to
its effectiveness (goal achievement) and efficiency (minimum waste, costs).

The fourth category concerns the organization and its employees. How important is it
for the organization that it contributes to the well-being of its employees? (employee-
concerned, fairness). Or in other words: does the organization value the self-
fulfilment of its employees? This shows that this dimension is related to the last
category of values, at the 'level' of the individual employee.

The fifth category more precisely looks at the qualities of employees and their work
that the organization values. Several values can be distinguished.

24
Which is not the same as opportunism, but this value is included in this concept.
25
Care is an element of serviceability as well as a value of `employees and their work' (compet-
ence and dedication).
First, there are values that have to do with doing a good job. Partly, this is a matter of
professional competence or `expertise' (competence, expertise, informedness, political
awareness, professional excellence, professionalism).
It also matters whether employees are dedicated to their job (care, diligence
dedication, economy, meeting targets, thoroughness, working hard) and whether
they are innovative and creative and do have the courage to take risks when
26
necessary. Another quality which more often is regarded among the most important
values to be honoured is honesty. Employees have to act truthfully and have to be
willing to justify their decisions (accountability, discretion, honesty, truthfulness).
Second, and very important, there are values concerning the interests that have to be
taken into account. It is crucial that employees act to further organizational interests
instead of the interests of themselves (selflessness, integrity versus self-interest) or the
interest of other groups or organizations (objectivity, impartiality, independence,
neutrality). This also means being loyal and obedient to the organization and to the
superiors (obedience).

When employees value their colleagues and are loyal to them, collegiality is an
important value (collegiality, loyalty, solidarity, teamwork).
Additionally, leadership is often considered of crucial importance for the integrity of
an organization. Leaders show which values are important and they can contribute
enormously to organizational ethics. At the same time, itself it is not a value, a
standard or a principle.

The last category has to do with the goals, ambitions and desires of the employees
themselves. An organization which sees itself primarily as servant of its employees,
will try to maximize the value 'self-fulfilment' (autonomy/self-determination, fun
making, home and personal considerations, liberty, passion, self-determination).

Conclusion
The value systems of organizations inevitably are complex entities with many values
concerning their environment, their relationship with other organizations, their
policies and products and their employees. Nevertheless, for each of those elements
or dimensions, a number of important values have been described and selected.

organization and its environment

social justice
sustainability
organization and other organizations
competitiveness
cooperativeness
organizational policies/products and its public
accountability
consistency
effectiveness
efficiency
honesty
lawfulness
profitability

26
Optimism is a value which is difficult to embed in the framework. It is related to courage and
confidence as well as to creativity and innovativeness.
 responsiveness
service orientation
transparency
employees and their work
courage
dedication
expertise
honesty
impartiality
innovativeness
obedience
selflessness
employee and other employees
collegiality
employee
self-fulfilment

Thus, in alphabetical order, the following set of core values of organizations can be
distinguished:

- accountability: be answerable, be willing to justify action

- collegiality: act loyally, show solidarity with one's colleagues
- competitiveness: act as good as or better than comparable others
- consistency: act congruous, united and consistent
- cooperativeness: act together, to achieve mutual benefit
- courage: act with determination, willing to take risks
- dedication: perform one's task with diligence, dedication and care
- effectiveness: act to produce the desired or intended result
- efficiency: act to produce results with minimum wasted effort/expense
- expertise: act with competence, skill, knowledge
- honesty: act truthfully, faithfully and keep one's promises
- impartiality: act unbiased, unprejudiced by group interests, independent
- innovativeness: act with imagination, introduce new policies or products
- lawfulness: act in accordance with existing laws, rules, regulations
- obedience: act in agreement with instructions and policies of the organization
- profitability: act to maximize organizational gain/benefits
- responsiveness: act in accordance with the wishes of the public
- self-fulfilment: act to maximize personal goals, well-being
- selflessness: act unbiased, unprejudiced by self interest
- service orientation: act respectfully and helpfully towards customer/citizen
- social equity: act because of the common good, to achieve social justice
- sustainability: act to prevent harm to the environment
- transparency: act openly and transparently, without secrecy

Research will have to clarify how important the different values are for public and
private sector ethics. At the same time it is clear that the presented examples from
business ethics and the ethical involvement of companies show that private companies
can share a number of the ethical concerns which are discussed in public settings.
Values like honesty and openness, often prominent in public sector codes of conduct,
are also present in lists of `business values'.

In an earlier article we suggested that some values seem to be associated more often
with the private sector, some with the public sector and a number might be good
candidates to be part of a common ethical core of all organizations.
In this paper the list of values has been enlarged. We would suggest the following
hypothetical picture of the prominence of values in the private and public sector,
using the values mentioned before.

Core values for both the public and the private sector seem to be efficiency,
expertise, honesty, dedication and lawfulness. Values which seem to be important for
business while they are not at the core of public sector ethics are profitability,
competitiveness, innovativeness, service orientation, collegiality, self-fulfilment and
sustainability. Social equity, transparency, responsiveness, accountability, impartiality
and selflessness (act unbiased by self interest) are fundamental values for public
servants and politicians, but management and employees in the business sector do not
have to take them into account (to the same extent). Values of which the importance
is less clear are consistency, courage, cooperativeness and obedience.
To conclude: we hypothesize that there are similarities as well as differences and
contradictions between public and private sector ethics. Business and government
differ and both sectors will have to take into account these differences and
contradictions. Whether this leads to problems and conflicts, is another question.

business profitability, competitiveness,

values service orientation, innovativeness,
collegiality, self-fulfilment
sustainability

common efficiency, expertise

core honesty, dedication
values lawfulness
common other values:
consistency, courage,
cooperativeness, obedience

accountability, impartiality, selflessness

public transparency, responsiveness
values social equity
References

Bovens, Mark
(1996) De integriteit van de bedrijfsmatige overheid. In M. Bovens and A.
Hemerijck (red.), Het verhaal van de moraal. Amsterdam & Meppel: Boom, pp.
150-170. Also: The integrity of the Managerial States, Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management 4 (3), 1996, pp. 125-132.
Caiden, Gerald E.
(1999) The Essence of Public Service Ethics and Professionalism. In L.W.J.C.
Huberts and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private
Interface. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 21-44.
Chandler, R.C.
(1990) A guide to ethics for public servants. In: J.L. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of
public administration. (p. 602-618). San Francisco & Oxford: Jossey Bass.
Cohen, J.L. and A. Arato
(1992) Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Committee of Independent Experts
(1999) First Report on Allegations regarding Fraud, Mismanagement and
Nepotism in the European Commission. 15 March 1999.
Cooper, Terry L.
(1994) Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New York (etc.): Marcel Dekker.
De George, Richard T.
(1993) Competing With Integrity in International Business. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dienhart, John W.
(2000) Business, Institutions and Ethics. A Text with Cases and Readings. New
York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dubbink, Wim
(1999) Duurzaamheid als patstelling. Over de onvriendelijke betrekkingen tussen
openbaar bestuur, markt en civil society. Delft: Eburon.
Hartman, Laura Pincus
(1998) Perspectives in Business Ethics. Chicago: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Huberts, L.W.J.C. and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.)
(1999) Integrity at the Public-Private Interface. Maastricht: Shaker.
Huberts, L.W.J.C. and J.H.J. van den Heuvel
(1999) Integrity at the Public-Private Interface: Introduction. In L.W.J.C. Huberts
and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private Interface.
Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 7-14.
Huberts, L.W.J.C., J.H.J. van den Heuvel and M. Punch
(1999) Ethics and Integrity and the Public-Private Interface. In L.W.J.C. Huberts
and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private Interface.
Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 165-184.
Jacobs, Jane
(1992) Systems of Survival. A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce
and Politics. London (etc.): Hodder & Stoughton.
Johnson, Gery and Kevan Scholes
(1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy. Fifth Edition. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall
Europe.
Johnston, Michael
(1993) "Corruption as a Process." In Maurice Punch et al., Coping with Corrup-
tion in a Borderless World. Deventer (etc.): Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers
(etc.), pp. 39-57.
Kaptein, Muel
(1998) Ethics Management: Auditing and Developing the Ethical Content of
 Organizations. Issues in Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publis-
hers.
Kaptein, Muel and Johan Wempe
(1999) Working on Integrity: Differences and Similarities. Between Public and
Private Sector Organizations. In L.W.J.C. Huberts and J.H.J. van den Heuvel
(Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private Interface. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 113-131.
Kreitner, Robert, Angelo Kinicki and Marc Buelens
(1999) Organizational Behaviour. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill
Lasswell, Harold D.
(1958) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? Cleveland: The World Publishing
Co. (orig.: 1936)
Lawton, Alan
(1999) Social Enterprise and the Public Services Manager. In L.W.J.C. Huberts
and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private Interface.
Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 57-73.
Lawton, Alan
(1998) Ethical Management for the Public Services. Buckingham & Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Lee, David, Philip Newman and Robert Price
(1999) Decision Making in Organizations. London: Financial Times Manage-
ment.
Montefiori, Alan
(1999) Integrity: a philosopher's introduction. In Alan Montefiori and David Vines
(Eds.), Integrity in the Public and Private Domains. London: Routledge, pp. 3-
18.
Montefiori, Alan and David Vines (Eds.)
(1999) Integrity in the Public and Private Domains. London: Routledge.
Oliver, Dawn
(1997) Regulating the Conduct of MP's. The British Experience of Combating
Corruption. In: Paul Heywood, Political Corruption. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 123-
142.
Paine, Lynn Sharp
(1994). Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business Review,
Reprinted in John W. Dienhart (2000) Business, Institutions and Ethics. A Text
with Cases and Readings. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 28-
39.
Petrick, Joseph A. and John F. Quinn
(1997) Management ethics. Integrity at work. Thousand Oaks (etc.): SAGE.
Pieth, Mark and Peter Eigen (Eds.)
(1999) Korruption im internationalen Geschäftsverkehr. Bestandsaufnahme.
Bekämpfung. Prävention. Neuwied, Kriftel: Luchterhand.
Plant, Jeremy F.
(1994) Codes of ethics. In: Terry L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of administrative
ethics. New York (etc.): Marcel Dekker, pp. 221-241.
Pollock, Joycelyn M.
(1998) Ethics in Crime and Justice. Dilemmas and Decisions. 3rd ed. Belmont
CA: Wadsworth.
Punch, Maurice
(1996) Dirty business. Exploring Corporate Misconduct. London (etc.): Sage.
Quah, Jon S.T.
(1995) Controlling Corruption in City-states: A Comparative Ctudy of Hong
Kong and Singapore. Crime, Law & Social Change 22: 391-414.
Sampford, Charles and Noel Preston (with C-A Bois) (Eds.)
(1998) Public Sector Ethics. Finding and Implementing Values. Annandale: The
Federation Press and London: Routledge.
Sherman, Tom
(1998) Public Sector Ethics: Prospects and Challenges. In Charles Sampford and
Noel Preston (with C-A Bois) (Eds.), Public Sector Ethics. Finding and Imple-
menting Values. Annandale: The Federation Press and London: Routledge, pp. 13-
25.
Sorgdrager, W.
(1999) Putting the Cards on the Table. Integrity at the Public-Private Interface. In
L.W.J.C. Huberts and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-
Private Interface. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 15-20.
Taylor, Martyn
(1999) The Australian Department of Defence's Interface with the Private Sector.
In L.W.J.C. Huberts and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-
Private Interface. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 85-98.
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
(1998) Corruption & Integrity Improvement Initiatives in Developing Countries.
New York: UNDP.
Voth, Arthur
(1999) Professionalism in Practice. Bridges to the Century. In L.W.J.C. Huberts
and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.), Integrity at the Public-Private Interface.
Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 45-56.
Wempe, Johan
(1998) Market and Morality. Delft: Eburon.
Whitton, Howard
(1999) Legislating for Ethics: Responses to the Public Sector Ethics Act in the
Queensland Public Sector. In L.W.J.C. Huberts and J.H.J. van den Heuvel (Eds.),
Integrity at the Public-Private Interface. Maastricht: Shaker, pp. 99-112.
Whysall, Paul
(1994) Ethics in decision making. In David Jennings and Stuart Wattam, Decision
Making. An Integrated Approach. London: Pitman, pp. 242-266.
Wittmer, Dennis P.
(1994) Ethical Decision-making. In: Terry L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of Admini-
strative Ethics. New York (etc.): Marcel Dekker, pp. 349-372.
Annex 1 Code of Ethics
27
American Society for Public Administration

The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) exists to advance the science,
processes, and art of public administration. The Society affirms its responsibility to
develop the spirit of professionalism within its membership, and to increase public
awareness of ethical principles in public service by its example. To this end, we, the
members of the Society, commit ourselves to the following principles:
I Serve the Public Interest
Serve the public, beyond serving oneself. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Exercise discretionary authority to promote the public interest.
2. Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, and promote affirmative action.
3. Recognize and support the public's right to know the public's business.
4. Involve citizens in policy decision-making.
5. Exercise compassion, benevolence, fairness and optimism.
6. Respond to the public in ways that are complete, clear, and easy to understand.
7. Assist citizens in their dealings with government.
8. Be prepared to make decisions that may not be popular.

II Respect the Constitution and the Law

Respect, support, and study government constitutions and laws that define responsibil-
ities of public agencies, employees, and all citizens. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Understand and apply legislation and regulations relevant to their professional role.
2. Work to improve and change laws and policies that are counter-productive or
obsolete.
3. Eliminate unlawful discrimination.
4. Prevent all forms of mismanagement of public funds by establishing and maintaining
strong fiscal and management controls, and by supporting audits and investigative
activities.
5. Respect and protect privileged information.
6. Encourage and facilitate legitimate dissent activities in government and protect the
whistleblowing rights of public employees.
7. Promote constitutional principles of equality, fairness, representativeness, responsive-
ness and due process in protecting citizens' rights.

III Demonstrate Personal Integrity

Demonstrate the highest standards in all activities to inspire public confidence and trust
in public service. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Maintain truthfulness and honesty and to not compromise them for advancement,
honor, or personal gain.
2. Ensure that others receive credit for their work and contributions.
3. Zealously guard against conflict of interest or its appearance: e.g., nepotism, improper
outside employment, misuse of public resources or the acceptance of gifts.
4. Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues and the public.
5. Take responsibility for their own errors.
6. Conduct official acts without partisanship.

IV Promote Ethical Organizations

Strengthen organizational capabilities to apply ethics, efficiency and effectiveness in
serving the public. ASPA members are committed to:
1. Enhance organizational capacity for open communication, creativity, and dedication.
2. Subordinate institutional loyalties to the public good.

27
At: http://www.aspanet.org/member/coe.htm
3. Establish procedures that promote ethical behavior and hold individuals and
organizations accountable for their conduct.
4. Provide organization members with an administrative means for dissent, assurance of
due process and safeguards against reprisal.
5. Promote merit principles that protect against arbitrary and capricious actions.
6. Promote organizational accountability through appropriate controls and procedures.
7. Encourage organizations to adopt, distribute, and periodically review a code of ethics
as a living document.

V Strive for Professional Excellence

Strengthen individual capabilities and encourage the professional development of others.
ASPA members are committed to:
1. Provide support and encouragement to upgrade competence.
2. Accept as a personal duty the responsibility to keep up to date on emerging issues and
potential problems.
3. Encourage others, throughout their careers, to participate in professional activities and
associations.
4. Allocate time to meet with students and provide a bridge between classroom studies
and the realities of public service.